[Tbadder1]

Read the newest issue of Audiophile Voice my friends.  Dan Sweeny reviews (very broadly) three new offerings from Sharp, the SD-HX600, SD-HX500, and the SD-PX2.  In the review he believes the amp is more listenable/enjoyable than the Wolcott Audio Presence monoblocks, the GamuT D200, the Pathos Twin Towers, and the Dared DV-80!  

Considering that the most expensive of these retails for 1500.00, I'd say we might be on the edge of a breakthrough.  That these units also contain source units that play both SACD and DVD-A, as well as regular CDs and DVDs is a bonus.

Now all of this might be speculation if it weren't for my own experience with my Sharp digital amp/pre/source.  It's so scary good.  For instance,  the new Dylan Hybrid CD reissues sound marginally better through this little glorified boombox than through my reference system!

In addition, consider that the clock rate of my unit is 2.8 Mhz and that the HX600 and 500 Sharps are rated at 5.6Mhz!

Another interesting tidbit I found, one suggested by the article, is that Sharp doesn't consider these products high-end at all.  Rather they are mass products geared for the unthinking who buy Sharp because they match the room decor.  Proof of this?  Speaker cables will be spring loaded!!  Arggh!!  As soon as these babies hit the American market a serious modder needs to get ahold of these things.

[cjr888]

Actually a good portion of the cheaper little units are 5.6mhz/128fs as well.  I have the SD-SH111 at home (think that's the model).  

Check the link below.
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=sharp+5.6mhz&scoring=p

Also, if you search on the PX2, it appears that circuitwarehouse.net may have them for $408.  Shows unavailable when you click all the way through, but...

And yes, the speaker terminals are beyond annoying, but the unit itself is a 'cute' little package.  Only listened to mine a handful of times, with some vintage Nordmende speakers and very briefly with some Cornwalls with horrible placement.  A lot of fun for a little cash, and if the audio related attributes fit your needs, you can't complain with having everything in a single, tiny little box...

[BrunoB]

Proof of this? Speaker cables will be spring loaded!! Arggh!!  ...

The 500 and 600 are not spring loaded, at least in Japan.


More info here (go to the link with a pict of the back of the unit):
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=5655&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=sdhx500&start=10

[Tbadder1]

That's certainly good to hear.  I got my info from a British press release.  Just a question though--since the 2.8Mhz clock rate emulates SCAD, is my small SG reading the SACD layer or the redbook layer on my hybrids?

[BenF]

I have a couple of these. They can only read redbook, not SACD. But, since the amp is a DSD-like amp, it probably converts the redbook PCM to DSD. This may account for the sound difference you hear. Sharp's digital amps are all 7th order delta-sigma modulation, but in my opinion, they are better than Sony's implementation. Most other digital amps are PWM, so Sharp and Sony are the exceptions.

The SD-SG11 is great as a small system (only 25w per channel into 4 ohms, you need efficient speakers) - very good build quality for a great price when they were discontinued. The minidisc is a real bonus. We'll have to wait for the direct from SACD capable models and see how they sound. It will be interesting.

Ben

[Occam]

Read the newest issue of Audiophile Voice my friends.  Dan Sweeny reviews (very broadly) three new offerings from Sharp, the SD-HX600, SD-HX500, and the SD-PX2.  In the review he believes the amp is more listenable/enjoyable than the Wolcott Audio Presence monoblocks, the GamuT D200, the Pathos Twin Towers, and the Dared DV-80!  

Considering that the most expensive of these retails for 1500.00, I'd say we might be on the edge of a breakthrough.  That these units also contain source units that play ...

The unit which Dan Sweeny based his comparison upon was the Sharp SM-SX1 @ $4,500. There was no review (whatsoever, not even 'broadly'), of Sharp's newer, 1-bit, lower cost componnents). This is not to say that these new components are not the greatest thing since sliced bread; it is just that nothing available indicates, nor disputes, such assertions.

Certainly, that 'trickle down' of technology can often benefit the consumer, but please remember that the other thing that typically  'trickles down' is urine.  

[Mathew_M]

The digital amps indeed do some things exceedingly well.  Namely detail, bass and frequency extension.  However they don't do that magical midrange of a good tube amp.  I can attest this having heard both on my VMPS ribbon speakers.  

With that said I raise my glass in hopes that more audiophools decide to sell their top end gear at close out prices on Agon in favor of $400 electronics.  Gives a poor guy like myself more options  

[JoshK]

I will point out what personal experience with regards to the Sharp 1 bit receiver units.   I have one of the formerly raved about Sharp 1 bit receivers (can't remember model number but the one with seperate amp and has a MD player in it).  I bought it for bedroom use and for that it is fantastic.  I purchase for use with this stereo the $90/pair Omage AV21 which at their 89db efficiency and 6 ohm impedance seemed about right for the unit.  I also have a pair of Tang Band 3" 871 based speakers that I built myself (which are only so-so performers, imo, as I have built them).  

A while back, before trading my McCormack headphone amp for my current headphone amp I decided to do a mini shootout between the Sharp 1bit and the McCormack.  The McAmp in question is the micro integrated amp that has speaker bindings and puts out about 10w/ch with the upgrade power supply.  I figured this was a pretty fair comparison since the Sharp puts out only 12-13w/ch @ 8 ohms and 25 @ 4R, so by linear deduction would put out something in the range of 18w/ch.  I used the Sharp for the preamp purposes for all comparisons, so the sharp's own amp has a clear advantage in this case as it is using no A/D or D/A stages, where w/ the McAmp there is probably a cheap D/A stage.  

I made comparisons with both pairs of speakers. The tang band based speakers (I will refer to them as my Micros) sound fairly awful on the sharp until you really crank the volume and then they open up and sound a lot less harsh.  My wife who was coming in and out of the room at the time also noted the same.  There is no lower midbass at all at lower volumes and the upper midrange is brutally harsh.  On the McAmp, the same holds true a bit with these speakers but not nearly as much, there is clearly a lot more lower midbass and weight to the music at normal bedroom listening levels.  

Since I don't put much faith in these speakers (likely my poor craftsmanship at play here) I really focused on the comparison between the two amps with the Omage speakers.  Again, at lower volumes I think the clear winner for being the most balanced overall sound goes to the McAmp.  The speakers themselves are a bit too boomy imo but do have a fairly satisfying sound from the mids on up.   The sharp has a very crisp, clear and detailed sound.  It definitely sounds alive and open.   However, the McAmp just had more weight and texture and more authoratively controlled the speakers, sounding a bit less boomy and more balanced overall.  However, the McAmp suffered from a bit less detail and openness compared to the sharp amp but I question the cheap DA stage at play here.  All that said, I am still quite happy with the Sharp as a bedroom receiver and I think I might play around with tweaking the Omage to address a couple of nitpicks.


I mention this not because I think someone is going to build their system around one of these units, but because I think it highlights a larger issue.  I think a lot of us here are too quick to jump on the newest bandwagon or the next best thing.  I have been to audio group meetings where I kind of felt like this sort of phenomena was happening, albeit on a smaller scale.  Its easy it seems for an audiophile to be captured by a product that offers a lot of audiophile qualities (imaging, soundstage, openness, detail) at the expense of body, texture, authority and tonal balance.  I think one needs to be cautiously optimistic when hearings something new and spend some serious time evaluating said product with the other factors in mind before drawing conclusions.   I am not trying to be hyper critical of conversations here, I am part of all that, but just offering a reminder.

[jackman]

Josh,

Excellent post.  I have always enjoyed reading your observations and agree with you 100% on this one.  I also think audio evaluations are very difficult to make in a short time (unless something sounds down-right bad).  I have the small Sharp unit in my bedroom system and don't think it sounds bad.  It sounds great when you consider I only paid $129 for it.  I don't think it's a giant killer and certainly not one that will challenge anything reputable audio company but it's perfect for background sound.  

Cheers!

Jack

[mcrespo71]

Its easy it seems for an audiophile to be captured by a product that offers a lot of audiophile qualities (imaging, soundstage, openness, detail) at the expense of body, texture, authority and tonal balance.

It's funny that you separated out these qualities as audiophile/non-audiophile qualities, Josh.  If you frequent the NAIM/LINN/REGA forums where "musical communication (i.e., PRAT, but they hate that word)" is the most important thing, all of the qualities you listed are considered of the sonic/audioweenie/audiophile camp.  I personally think all of it is important if you listen to lots of music.  You need correct imaging to accurately recreate an orchestra, but you also need tonal balance and weight to recreate the instruments properly.  If I were to generalize, I'd say the tonal balance/imaging camp, if that's how the flat-earth audio (i.e. Brit stuff)want to call it, is better for classical, jazz, and vocal music.  PRAT is more important if you listen to a lot of rock n roll.  My backup Rega Brio integrated amp is peerless for rock music IMO.  It releases the beats so effortlessly and is just toe tapping- it blows away my big rig for this quality, but it can't do everything and I listen to too much other stuff to rely solely on it.  It's supremely inolving, if not the last word in dynamics, imaging, or tonality.  It's actually a great piece to test my system out with, as I can check the PRAT of different upgrades and voice my system to be at least competent at rhythm.

Michael

[JoshK]

Mike, your right, these are still audioweenie qualities, I was more referring to those audiophiles that I know.  Seems like most audiophiles i know lean towards imaging, soundstage and detail.  Which don't mean as much to me as accuracy, PRAT and tonal balance.   But we each have our own priorities.

[mcrespo71]

Agreed.  I am now more convinced than ever that too much refinement in my audio system is a bad thing.  I listen to probably 60-70% rock music and PRAT is so fricking essential.  I've been experimenting with mass loading my CD players, amps, preamp, and speakers and it is just sucking the life out of the music for rock.  Oh, for classical, it expands the stage, midbass, and dynamic authority, but put on The Clash or Chic and my system is having trouble with attack and letting go of the beats- it's like it's plodding along with the extra dynamics that were added from mass loading.  I'm convinced that for me to keep my tube amps/preamps, I need to have my sources be on light/rigid platforms (i.e., Neuance) and use flat earth sources (i.e., my Rega P25 on a Neuance platform is just fine here, but I need to swich the cartridge from my slow, tonally rich Grado to something a little more neutral and rhythmically adroit like a Dynavector 20XH, which the PRAT lovers rave about).  I think my entire digital front end will have to go as well eventually.  As much as I love my Parasound/Ack dAck combo for classical/jazz as it is so pure sounding, it's too refined sounding for rock.  My P25 is just so much more involving.  I had a Rega Planet 2000 in here a few days ago and it was just pratty as hell and rocked!  Moreover, it had decent imaging/tone, so it would probably fit more synergestically with my back end/electronics.  I think I'll look into getting a Naim or perhaps a Rega Jupiter in the future.  It's all a balancing act, though to get all the qualities you want and requires careful thought.  I'd consider going all NAIM, but damn that's expensive.  I've heard the Rega separates are vastly underrated and the prices are right, but I'm happy with my tube gear.  I just need to balance my equipment to fit all my priorities, which is everything .

That's my rant.

[TheChairGuy]

Thinking pretty much along Josh's lines, most of us do (as early adoptors in audio) tend to rush out to the next thing a wee early.

Personally, I think digital amplification will be the majority choice in a few short years.  I think many of the manufacturers and modders have found that much of the perceived qualitative differences between digital and analog can be traced to power supplies. Not all, but much of digititis is power supply related.

It took 20 odd years for many a hardened analog-ista to ditch vinyl in whole or part, or at least admit that digital has come a surprisingly long way.  Many of the lessons learned in designing digital playback devices can be applied to amplification.  End result; we won't be waiting 20 years to ditch our solid state gear...it will be faster than that, for sure.

Anyhow, that's my view of things.  

[BikeWNC]

I think digital amplification is another flavor of sound. Is it the right flavor?  Well that's up to you.  But there will remain the SS, tube and hybrid camps as well as the subsets of digital and whatever new technology comes along.  Will digital amps become the mainstream?  Probably, because they can be cheap to produce en mass so that most BB and the like shoppers will opt for them.  But audiophiles will always seek out the differences and that is what will keep other types of amplification around.  Why do so many of us still have tubes in our systems?  Because they offer something different than most ss components.  Better?  Maybe, maybe not.  Enjoyable?  Sure.  So to me, all this talk about the demise of everything non-digital is silly.  A fun debate but with no real meaning.

Andy

[rosconey]

heck after 20 years they are just starting to figure out how to make a decent sounding low cost cd player-
digital amps   who knows how long

[PhilNYC]

But we each have our own priorities.

I have no priorites...I want it all...  

[BrunoB]

Read the newest issue of Audiophile Voice my friends.  Dan Sweeny reviews (very broadly) three new offerings from Sharp, the SD-HX600, SD-HX500, and the SD-PX2.  In the review he believes the amp is more listenable/enjoyable than the Wolcott Audio Presence monoblocks, the GamuT D200, the Pathos Twin Towers, and the Dared DV-80!  

Considering that the most expensive of these retails for 1500.00, I'd say we might be on the edge of a breakthrough.  That these units also contain source units that play ...

Here is an (older) similar review from the same author:
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/mar03/digsb1.html

The digital amp reviewed is the Sharp SM-SX1.

[doug s.]

Agreed. I am now more convinced than ever that too much refinement in my audio system is a bad thing. I listen to probably 60-70% rock music and PRAT is so fricking essential. I've been experimenting with mass loading my CD players, amps, preamp, and speakers and it is just sucking the life out of the music for rock. Oh, for classical, it expands the stage, midbass, and dynamic authority, but put on The Clash or Chic and my system is having trouble with attack and letting go of the beats- it's like it's plodding along with the extra dynamics that were added from mass loading. I'm convinced that for me to keep my tube amps/preamps, I need to have my sources be on light/rigid platforms (i.e., Neuance) and use flat earth sources (i.e., my Rega P25 on a Neuance platform is just fine here, but I need to swich the cartridge from my slow, tonally rich Grado to something a little more neutral and rhythmically adroit like a Dynavector 20XH, which the PRAT lovers rave about). I think my entire digital front end will have to go as well eventually. As much as I love my Parasound/Ack dAck combo for classical/jazz as it is so pure sounding, it's too refined sounding for rock. My P25 is just so much more involving. I had a Rega Planet 2000 in here a few days ago and it was just pratty as hell and rocked! Moreover, it had decent imaging/tone, so it would probably fit more synergestically with my back end/electronics. I think I'll look into getting a Naim or perhaps a Rega Jupiter in the future. It's all a balancing act, though to get all the qualities you want and requires careful thought. I'd consider going all NAIM, but damn that's expensive. I've heard the Rega separates are vastly underrated and the prices are right, but I'm happy with my tube gear. I just need to balance my equipment to fit all my priorities, which is everything  .

That's my rant.

looking at yer system & at yer comments, i'd suggest trying an art di/o modded dac in lieu of the non-oversampling dac yure presently using.  i don't have experience w/the non-oversampling dac, but this is based upon my experience w/my modded di/o, & comments of others who have compared these products - whether or not they preferred one or the other.

also, get rid of the benz cartridge, in favor of something like an ortofon, or another cartridge that favors accuracy over lushness...

doug s.

[Jay S]

For power and dynamics (as well as imaging), my Mensa DI/O killed my TubeDac, though the TubeDac has a fuller midrange and smoother highs.  It depends on what you want and of course synergy... Personally, I wish I could have it all...

[Marbles]

For power and dynamics (as well as imaging), my Mensa DI/O killed my TubeDac, though the TubeDac has a fuller midrange and smoother highs.  It depends on what you want and of course synergy... Personally, I wish I could have it all...

You can .....  an Empirical modded Perp Tech P3a.